Government shutdown and the demise of the U.S. Department of Education

• The shutdown may also expedite the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, a promise of the Trump administration and a fear of the education establishment.
• States should seize this opportunity to set goals, establish working groups to study what implementing various federal changes would entail, and seek public feedback.

​The U.S. Senate has still been unable to pass a bill to end the current government shutdown, which began on October 1 – a reality that persists with implications for education policy.

Government shutdowns are not uncommon, but they often feel frustrating, cause real-world hiccups, and create fodder for finger-pointing between the two major political parties.

Specific to the education world, the shutdown may also expedite the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, a promise of the Trump administration and a fear of the education establishment.

However one feels about the department’s demise, all can agree that the shutdown is another reminder to states that the time to act with increased leadership and planning is now.

How the government shutdown is impacting education

Getting rid of the U.S. Department of Education has not been a linear process, even with the executive order calling for its dismantling. Still, a shutdown may shutter it more quickly.

According to reporting on the department’s contingency plan, during this shutdown, 87% of its workforce will be furloughed. There’s even been chatter about these furloughs becoming permanent, something not unthinkable for the administration to attempt. Earlier this year, the administration fired about half of its workforce. Later, a federal judge ordered the administration to reinstate approximately 2,000 employees, but the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently allowed the administration to proceed with its massive layoffs. For those eager to see the department eliminated, a furlough is likely welcome news. However, for on-the-ground leaders and practitioners, it will inevitably mean more uncertainty in the short term for state agencies and districts that interface with the federal agency, which is increasingly understaffed for normal operations. State agencies may be tasked with making tough decisions until they can get responses – and this requires planning.

Likewise, new grants will be paused, and there may also be temporary effects on Impact Aid, federal funds that get dispersed throughout the year to schools impacted by property tax and revenue loss due to the presence of federal property. Changes in specific grant funding earlier this year have already raised local-level concerns, leaving districts wondering how they would cover the costs of afterschool programs, English language programs, and other initiatives. While funding eventually came through, the experience highlighted the precariousness of depending on the stability of federal funds, even though it’s a small percentage overall. These current pauses and impacts mean local leaders need to be agile in their choices and consider how well even their local contingency plans are holding up to new changes.

Likewise, the shutdown means investigations into civil rights complaints will be paused. This highlights the need for states to prepare for a more significant role in civil rights issues, creating statutes that align with federal civil rights law, that also reflect the values of their state. If the federal role shrinks, states may be in a position to offer some recourse.

A warning and opportunity for states

The vacillations of 2025 are a harbinger for things to come. Even if a new administration comes in after the fact and eventually undoes all of it, states and students need stability for the next three years. But more likely, the changes made in education during this administration will have ripple effects for many years, regardless of who steps into office after the Trump administration. For education leaders wanting more autonomy at the state level, this is the opportunity they’ve been waiting for many years.

As we’ve advocated in prior articles, states should seize this opportunity to set broad aspirational goals (with state and local contingency plans for achieving them), establish appropriate cross-departmental working groups to study what implementing various federal changes would entail, and get regular public input on what they would hope education to look like in their state. When states are prepared, they are less likely to be caught off guard by changes at the federal level.

The shutdown is yet another sharp reminder to states that the department is already slowly getting dismantled, at least in the short term. It’s a reminder that consistency in educational issues, such as long-term planning, goals, funding, and even legal protections, will require greater state leadership now, not later.